Aren't we having a debate over proposal fees precisely because of fiat valuation? Unfortunately, Dash doesn't exist in a closed ecosystem (yet). Pegging the fee to something with low volatility, be it USD or something else, is far less subjective and more efficient than going through a new proposal process to play catch-up every time the price moves.
Yeah, but your view of the US dollar comes from your personal location and circumstance. Try explaining this to a Chinese or Russian person and see how far you get. Everyone in their global location already knows how much their dash is worth. As an MNO, is it really that difficult to submit one command each month stating your preferred proposal fee? Denominating in dash keeps us all on the same page.
Most ignore these desperate attempts.
More to come i hope.
Ahh. the ranting phase. nice.
Go man, go.
Put up or shut up. So far, the only people that have submitted governance proposals are Evan, myself and @Technologov
And I, for one, appreciate it. It takes balls at these prices.
Thank you. Yes, if you look at how the median average works, a few outliers of, say, 1000 dash (or the other extreme of 0.1 dash) would not affect the overall result. Please see this link for a straight forward explanation; http://www.mathsisfun.com/median.html
Sorry but it was brought to our attention this mechanism to prevent spam would not work, simply because an attacker could push the proposal fee up by buying up all the early proposals.
I also offer 20% of my whole dash fortune for the below specific dash governance proposal.
Man you can solve the problem with those who cast very high number votes in order to screw the average. Excommunicate them!
It can be done via "traditional" spork, we just need to add a new one on next major release. However, I would like to avoid that and actually try to decrease number of "traditional" sporks and shift control to masternodes by implementing smth which can be seen as "masternode spork". Basically, the idea you described which is to let MNs to vote and decide on some predefined set of network params. From design point this looks pretty much like hardcoded proposals with some special type of trigger (which won't be mined but instead will be "applied" to next budget cycle in some way) and we _should_ be able to reuse much of existing governance code in both dashd and sentinel. We have this on our list but it's too early to say if it really feasible or not. If we fail to make this work in short term, we can reuse good old "traditional" sporks as a temporary fix I guess. Long term - it should be either algorithmic like diff adjustment or "masternode spork" imo.
Yup. It requires a proof of individuality first.
Take a look back at the post where I made the calculation. There doesn't have to be a silver to Dash exhange... There are plenty of Silver to Fiat exchanges, and also plenty of Fiat to Crypto exchanges. So it would work very well. It could be calculated against multiple currency (USD, CNY, RMB, Euro, PHP, etc.) conversions from silver and averaged out so it doesn't matter if a currency is stable or not... It also doesn't matter if there is inflation. Again, I ask that you look at my post where the calculation is done. All you would need is FX exhanges (which there are a lot) and Crypto exchanges (also a lot). Btw, if 4 oz of silver was used, a proposal would cost almost exactly 1 Dash today.
Its not a bad idea, but why 10% increase and not 5% increase?
Its brill. The problem right now is we cant tell what affect price changes will have on the number of proposals, so we need a solution which adapts. And its simple.
No they arent. It depends on how you set up the proposal. You could setup a proposal that last for example 12 months, so the masternode votes will be valid for 12 months. So counting the votes every month is hardcoded. You could count every two months, and who says that counting every two tmonths is better that counting every one month?
Although I prefer the MNs to be able to vote and decide on all params (and even vote and ignite code chuncks), a predefined set is a good start.
This seems like a practical, fairly simple solution to the problem. A fixed rate in fiat would simplify the issue, since the value of DASH is inherently going to fluctuate.
Please read how median averages work. If I make this proposal, I will have to include a basic math lesson because this keeps coming up. If you have, say, 100 people voting and, say, 40 people voting for 1000000 dash proposal fee, it still doesn't affect the price because the votes are placed into sequence and the middle number selected (or, if there is an even number of votes, it's the average of the two middle votes).
What about pegging the fee to something non fiat, like, say the current spot price of an ounce of .999 pure Silver?